Earlier this year, this list had a period of lively discussion about the
nature of astrology. Unfortunately, that discussion did not appear to have
survived the period of my inactivity while relocating. While I'm not as
committed to developing the subject as I was at that time, some questions
have occurred to me the answers to which might generate different lines of
thought.

It is generally agreed that astrology, whatever else it might be, is a time
bound phenomena; a basic tool for the erection of a horoscope is the
ephemeris, implying that this parameter is not only relevant, but of primary
importance. We can think astrologically in terms of cycles, and we can
think astrologically in terms of spaces and spatial relationships. We can
engage in astrological analysis and speculation in terms that are
deliberately drawn from one or another school of psychology. We can extend
that exercise into realms of metaphysical and spiritual substance and
meaning. But all these rest on some number of assumptions, and it is some
of these assumptions I would inspect more closely.

I have argued elsewhere that astrology is a construct designed to extract
useful information from some phenomenon that links celestial and terrestrial
realms. It is the nature of this phenomenon I would question.

Is the astrological phenomenon general in nature, or does it require the
presence and involvement of living beings? If the latter, then what level
of life defines the most basic that enables the astrological phenomenon;
indeed, does this phenomenon require the involvement of human beings in
order to be functionally affective?

I anticipate some response asserting the assumption that human involvement
is necessary, as if the assumption was a matter of completely understood
fact. I would also expect some response suggesting that the involvement of
life is a prerequisite for the functionality of the astrological phenomenon.
What I submit is relevant here is some deliberate discussion about these
questions, especially focused on how those questions might be resolved.

How would, or could, we go about testing these questions? Is there any
extant account of astrological practice on subjects having completely
independent existence? Are there any testable hypotheses that would
support the resolution of these questions, either in the negative or in the
positive?

It might fairly be asked what value an answer to these questions might have.
Let's assume that we found evidence that suggests the necessary involvement
of life at least at a level of sophistication found in... say,
vertebrates. This would suggest that a spinal nervous system is part of the
prerequisite for the function of the astrological phenomenon, and would
imply that this system has some fundamental and defining relevance to that
phenomenon. It would also suggest that current psychological models are
special case tools for astrological interpretation, and that astrology is
indeed more than a special manifestation of the human (primate?) psyche.

I would suggest that any other tentative conclusions might well lead to
equally important defining implications. So I would submit that this sort
of investigative approach is appropriate because of a reasonable probability
that some sort of conclusions are possible.